But get on with work in the meanwhile anyway. It’s about time someone sent out all those badges, bandannas and membership cards to the “acolytes of the warming cult” that I feel I’m missing out on.

Booker and the Daily Tell really can keep this up – forever? You’d think they might occasionally wonder whether they should really be quite so committed to their opinion that they’re still willing to distort quite so blatantly. Saying that they’re just re-re-repeating what their readers already think isn’t much of an argument. If they want to keep readers longer-term, you’d think they’d be softening their stance ready for the inevitable move to a (however slightly) more realistic position.

In 2007, the record low extent was set. The vitriolic response from the pro-pollutionist community was deceipt: it was a completely freakish anomaly caused by winds blowing ice-debris out into the Atlantic. And TonyTWatt served up a ‘recovery-as-expected’ in 2008.

In 2012, a new record low was established, and a contributor to this was an unusually warm current that merged with the Beaufort Sea Gyre. Differnt science, same bucket response. In 2013, there’s a ‘recovery’ that’s partly illusion and partly just another tooth on the saw:

The real show starts in August and ends at the start of October. So if there’s surprise, it should be wondering what took Booker so long, and where is Discount Moncton when it’s already July.

And frankly, hope for some recovery … even if it’s only an anomaly. There’s a chance that the jet stream could stop acting like a wounded rattlesnake. And the planet really needs a break.

The pro-pollutionist delusion is built on the consequences coming later and landing on someone else – they’ll be gone before the bill comes due.

Observation says they’re wrong, but some of them could still slither through. So hope for the variations to give us a bit more recognizable weather and climate for a bit longer – cheer for volcanoes, El Nino’s, and aerosols.

Though the tone of the question himted at snark, the question is a scientifically interesting one, which means it has probably been investigated.

A quick search turns up this partially relevant paper, which notes the influence of warming of currents in the North Atlantic, beginning in the early part of the 20th century, and which reminds us that the 60s were the most marked ‘cool’ decade of the post-war period:

There is an interesting archive of sea ice edge positions from the Nordic seas going back a couple of centuries at NSIDC. Interestingly, the chart for Aug 1922
shows a summer ice edge that is slightly farther north than in years previous, but again, nothing like what we are seeing today.

The big new coal-fired power plants coming onstream in the 1950s were producing CO2 and sulfur compounds (and nitrogen oxides that become photochemical smog); the first low-smokestack setups were eventually followed by tall-smokestack designs as they struggled to make the sulfur problem “go away” — “Sulfur dioxide may remain airborne for 3-4 days” — the different emissions went different places. CO2 is well mixed globally so would quickly affect the Arctic both day and night; most of the sulfur compounds would not get there, they’d fall out in rain in a distinct plume downwind — look at the acid rain maps from that time.

So I’d guess the 1950s pattern showed “local” changes before the “global” warming would emerge from the noise.

I also recall reading somewhere — before the Internet — observations by early astronauts and cosmonauts described how clear the atmosphere was, and those who flew a second time much later on observed that Earth’s air was visibly hazier overall than it had been when they first went into orbit. I have looked for that again and not found it, not sure if it’s been documented beyond the anecdote.

Chuckle. When you look up the cites a commenter posts with an assertion about what the papers said, do also check for previous discussion here; some claims about what authors actually said get rebunked no matter how often refuted.
Example, ‘oogle for:
site:realclimate.org Semenov
site:realclimate.org Latif

Attribution for regional climate change is a difficult issue. Around the turn of the century the ocean north of Iceland got warmer, and saltier. The obvious explanation is a change in the inflow of Atlantic waters into the basin, although changes in air-sea interactions may also play a role.
A narrow view of the associated regional climate changes would see them as resulting from this change in the ocean (possibly implying that given a decade things would revert back to previous conditions).

Alternatively, one could ask why the Atlantic waters where warmer and saltier, why is the warming now extending throughout much of the basin. Seen from that perspective the regional change becomes part of changes on a much larger scale, even though proximate causes are by definition always local.

#1, adelady: “Booker and the Daily Tell really can keep this up – forever?”

probably. the former can, at least: Booker is an almost perfect example of crank magnetism in action. i don’t think there is a single anti-science idea, however mental, that he hasn’t openly subscribed to at some point. beyond his staggeringly ill-informed views on physics and the climate, he also denies that there are any harmful effects from passive smoking, is a creationist, and has been claiming for over a decade that asbestos is absolutely harmless because it’s chemically identical to talcum powder.

I noticed this in the bio of Norwegian-American pioneer polar aviator and war hero Bernt Balchen (1899-1973). (Also a friend of Thor Heyerdahl)

“According to a 1972 article in the Christian Science Monitor, Belchen asserted that “a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000″”

To put this claim in perspective

“As one of the world’s foremost Arctic experts, Balchen was sought out by numerous companies and government agencies including Canada and Norway. Balchen was hired as a consultant by Hercules Oil, then Phillips Petroleum and Moran Towing on plans to extract oil from Alaska using pipelines.”

#18–“…he also denies that there are any harmful effects from passive smoking, is a creationist, and has been claiming for over a decade that asbestos is absolutely harmless because it’s chemically identical to talcum powder.”

A pretty good additional denialist trifecta. How is he on quantum theory and HIV?

I love all these creative datasets emerging from the dusty basements of libraries (e.g. NSIDC link at #6) inspired/motivated almost entirely by this early twentieth century warming problem.

Cool recent example-processing of aerial photographs from the final Thule expedition to Greenland under the command of Knud Rasmussen (who unfortunately did not make it home) in 1932-33 (Bjørk et al June 2012 Nature Geosci).

Temperature observations from Norway is freely available from the Norw Met Inst. The locations of the longest time series are shown here. These observations [e.g., Svalbard, Jan Mayen, Vardø, Tromsø, Northern Norway] show that the period around the 1930s was warm in the northernmost part of Norway, but that the recent decades are warmer.

Hei Glen,
I guess the difference is caused by homogenisation issues. This is how the Norwegian Met Institute describes the Svalbard lufthavn time series [lufthavn = airport]. The page is available in Norwegian only, use google translate or similar to get the content.

Note the following:

“Prior to 1974, observations come from other stations on Spitzbergen, but these series have been adjusted to represent Svalbard lufthavn”.

[In Norwegian, Svalbard denotes the full group of islands, whereas Spitzbergen is the main island on Svalbard].

These ice charts from the Danish Meteorological Institute can now be found at NSIDC, with an introduction. The charts cover the years 1893-1956.
Here is the data page, complete with citation information:

@18 “asbestos is absolutely harmless because it’s chemically identical to talcum powder.” Just a bit of a clarification…Talc and chrysotile asbestos have similar, but not identical compositions. The issue is not the composition, but the mineral habit or form. Asbestiform minerals (there are several others…) are long, thin fibrous minerals. Talc is generally foliated or platy….think “mica”. Liquid water and ice have identical compositions but the health effects of being hit with 10 gallons of water are not the same as being hit with a chunk of ice.

There is an August 1937 map in Meddelelser om Gronland, Bd 130, 1945 from the Danish Meteorological Inst. showing the ice edge much closer to the northern end of Novaya Zemlya and ice completely surrounding Severnaya Zemlya. A bit less ice in the Chukchi Sea but, otherwise, very similar to 1938.

This volume (which I believe is still under copyright otherwise I’d have scanned the map) was written entirely by Lauge Koch and is titled, “The East Greenland Ice”. An enormous historical undertaking by Koch.

In addition to Koch’s study of sea ice from Kap Farvel to the Fram Strait, the last chapter is “Eskimo Archaeology and Climate”. Even in 1945 Koch knew.

Hi
at the heart of all denialist argument is that increased atmospheric co2 concentrations will not change the climate. they can not argue that co2 concentrations have not increased, they clearly have. Simple science experiments using test atmospheres and changing the co2 concentration will demonstrate global warming. What I dont understand is why denialists take this position. It is far better to understand the process and plan logically than hide in some obscure set of stat’s.

@e7 Bernberb. Denialists get everything else that isn’t straight AGW stuff. It’s nothing, it’s something but minor, it’s not minor but it’s good, it’s not good but it’s not ours (every ripple flavor of ‘ours’), and it’s big bad and ours but it’s TOO late/expensive/impossible to fix. If you want to see most if not all of the denialist arguments, Al Jazeera hosted a debate with the guest of honor being Richard Lintzen. It titled – Climate Change, Fact or Fiction.

It’s a shame that when comes down to do or die, some people opt for the wrong choice. There should be no question of belief or no belief. If there is even 1 out of 100 chance it’s happening, people should try stopping it. This is our home. If it’s destroyed by any foolish ideas, arguments, we will have no place to go to.
We recently published one article on climate change, pointing out a different problem, relating to wildfires and climate change. We get the same arguments over and over… Check it out here:http://www.blueplanetjournal.com/ecology/wildfires-point-to-global-warming.html

Do you have any comment on the paper by Lassen and Thejll of the Danish Meteorological Institute from observations between Arctic sea ice index and solar cycle length? The authors suggest this a possible link between solar activity and Arctic Ocean climate. I am aware, of course, that correlation is not causation but it does seem a new take, at least to me, on Arctic sea ice.

I’m afraid that propasal would require enough money to buy out the Barclay Brothers who own the Spectator and Telegraphs. These papers ‘educate’ the UK Conservative party and have form in misrepresenting or reversing the latest climate research * in their news section as well as employing extremist contrarian opinion pieces. The latter don’t appear to check anything with experts; for example the Spectator included a favourable reference to Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s nonsense.
———–* This report was contradicted in the abstract of the paper

XKCD has something to say about all this (forgive me if you’ve already seen it).http://xkcd.com/164/

Meanwhile, back at the ranch things are hotting up in the Arctic, much discussed at Neven’s and elsewhere. Big chunk of N79 glacier* came off (though annual in recent years, this year appears to be a mite different), and there is a cyclone coming up. Discussion and links in comments here:

Misinterpreting every fact they find inconvenient as an ideological attack, because to them -everything- is ideology first, and facts are twisted in service of their ideology. So they assume -any- fact is, first off, someone’s ideological spin.

Sea level rising? That’s gotta be someone’s ploy against freedom to make money fast. They resist no matter what it costs your grandchildren, because they want their “free market” no matter what it costs, because the costs are paid by the world, but the profits go to a very few.

#44, 45–Right, the paper that argues that because there are fewer glaciers in the Greenland sea now than at the height of the “Medieval Warm Period” that therefore the decline must be due to natural variability?

The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.

1) The data relates only to one marginal sea in the Arctic, and that at one remove (i.e., Iceland data is used as a proxy for the Greenland Sea;)

2) The paper says that in doing their analysis “We only use the years where the SCL(1,2,1) index is well defined – namely 1558-1625 and 1695-1980.” (“SCL” denotes “solar cycle length.”)

So, the thesis is that for a specific selected time frame, a correlation exists between solar cycle length and the iceberg sightings off Iceland AND THEREFORE “Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal [of sea ice] could be a natural occurrence.”
Got that? A period for which the SCL index is NOT ‘well defined’, and an area many times larger than the Greenland Sea, behaving in a fashion for which we have no recent precedent according to literature–see, for instance the review article from Polyak et al, 2010–‘could’ be natural since a possible relationship between sea ice and solar cycle length has been demonstrated, sort of.

“Could” seems a highly favored term. But when you’re manufacturing doubt, you need to use quality ingredients, right? And traditionally, “could” is primo.

Fair enough. But sauce for the gander–and I’ll opine that the solar cycle length effect that may or may not exist in the Greenland Sea ‘could’ have absolutely nothing to do with the cause(s) of ‘recent sea ice withdrawal.’

Kevin,
When the only available data is scant, then the conclusions become more guarded. Sea ice data prior to the satellite data is severely lacking, such that these types of attempts are used to recreate the extent of the sea ice as best we can.

> “free market” … costs are paid by the world,
> but the profits go to a very few.

Do note the air quotes. As Brin points out relentlessly, no matter -what- the political scientists or their predecessors in spin management call the system, it’s been oligarchs all the way down in human history.

Science challenges oligarchy with education. It’s damned dangerous, to the few who benefit by externalizing costs and capturing profits and power.

No matter what you call the political system, it’s the outcome that matters.

#51–Dan, I respectfully disagree with your comment that “these types of attempts are used to recreate the extent of the sea ice as best we can.”

I don’t think that this is ‘the best we can’ if ‘best’ is defined as looking for a true picture. (And–just to keep the record straight–it wasn’t about recreating extent; it was about trying to relate an existing SI reconstruction to solar cycle length. They did nothing original on extent in this paper at all, and didn’t claim to have done so.)

It would have been a stronger paper if they had been much more circumspect in their ‘conclusions’ section. That a connection between solar cycle length and sea ice extent *could exist*–which is about what I take them to have shown–is not absurd, and might be worth examining.

But going on to suggest that such tenuous and limited results say something meaningful about the post-1980 pan-Arctic trend is a serious over-reach. So serious, in fact, that I conclude (for myself, not ‘objectively’) that the stretch was the main point–their result was pre-ordained to be some sort of suggestion that sea ice decline ‘could be natural.’ (BTW, their term for the observed loss, ‘sea ice withdrawal,’ is rather interesting (euphemistic) in itself, isn’t it?)

I think this paper was always about ‘casting doubt,’ not ‘finding out.’ Of course, YMMV–and it generally does, I’ve noticed.

Look at his statement : “When the only available data is scant, then the conclusions become more guarded. Sea ice data prior to the satellite data is severely lacking, such that these types of attempts are used to recreate the extent of the sea ice as best we can.”

Nobody can possibly disagree that we do the “best we can” to reconstruct sea ice prior to satellite measurements.

The problem is that Dan H attaches value (“best we can”) to a correlation between ice berg sightings off Iceland and the solar cycle as CAUSATION for Arctic sea ice loss.

“The problem is that Dan H attaches value (“best we can”) to a correlation between ice berg sightings off Iceland and the solar cycle as CAUSATION for Arctic sea ice loss.

That is where Dan H has explaining to do, not you.”

Thanks, Rob–but I must not have been as clear as I thought in my comment, as that covers a lot of the same ground I was trying to cover. It’s not news to me that Dan was throwing out a huge red herring; that, I thought, was addressed when I wrote:

“I don’t think that this is ‘the best we can’ if ‘best’ is defined as looking for a true picture. (And–just to keep the record straight–it wasn’t about recreating extent…)”

I just got permission to speak out about out secret task force – project Splainin Todo. I served in one of many elite ice melting squadrons – the entire force may be in the thousands, they never told us. But I know we were tasked with making an impact on the Arctic region that might provide an alternate explanation for the widespread melting. We worked tirelessly, alone on the tundra and ice during the long polar nights.

We were deployed extensively through the Arctic regions. Armed with dryers, heaters, fans, portable ovens – anything that would generate heat. Of course we brought hundreds of miles of extension cords – now neatly coiled for the return trip.

Just thought I would explain how my personal work made for at least some of the melting of the Arctic. Should call it project “alternate explanation” Believe me it was plenty cold before we got to work. You can see the results of our work in the satellite pictures – but the real results are in the press coverage. Each hair dryer in the cold melted certainty into doubt. Success.

I have been promoting that wonderful animation of the Danish DMI Arctic records (@24 & 34) and up popped a new denialist meme. Having had a moment to look more closely and think about it, I think it worthwhile to share this answer with anyone who encounters this new-minted argument:

Since the white areas are “inferred” it is being claimed as evidence the ice is not there. I took a closer look, so if you get this denial meme, note all the confirmed red observations are at the edges. The Arctic having then been more intemperate than it is now, with no airplane flyovers (airplanes being a lot less powerful then, it would have been dangerous to an extreme) or satellites, and shipping not so advanced, it would be surprising if they did have any observations not on the edges, but the edges are quite clearly defined.

http://gergs.net/2013/07/more-northern-sea-ice/
“The animation is drawn from the Danish Meteorological Institute’s sea ice maps for August in each year from 1920 to 1939. The red marks show actual records of ice conditions and the white area is the inferred ice extent.”

#63–Yes, a ridiculous argument if you ask me, but then a lot of these arguments are ridiculous. Yet it’s dangerous to let them go unchallenged.

It’s an interesting question, this early Arctic aviation thing. I’ve written about S.A. Andree’s “Svea” expedition, which turned into a Swedish national tragedy–the article is actually about the life and career of Nils Ekholm, who was on the original crew, and who (as a scientific buddy of Arrhenius) later wrote on CO2-mediated global warming:

Interestingly, one of those onboard was Arthur Koestler, later a Cold Warrior and author of Darkness At Noon.

But that was by no means a first or a best; Amundsen had got within 150 NM of the Pole in 1925, Richard Byrd claimed (controversially) to have reached it in 1926. Umberto Nobile is generally considered to have been first to reach the Pole via the air. His flight aboard the airship Norge was a little later that year. Further expeditions in the Italia in 1928 were marred by disaster:

I don’t know if anyone has been over the observations made during these diverse trips. But I’ve never heard of anything suggesting that anything close to current conditions was observed in the 20s–well, not comprehensively and credibly, anyway.

Susan – One place to find useful information is to look at all the various expeditions that tried to find a Northwest (or Northeast) Passage. Wiki has a pretty good timeline.

I’d start with the Franklin Expedition, the McClure Expedition, the Vega Expedition, and Nansen’s Fram Expedition. Each tells you something about the state of the arctic at the time. You can go further back into the 1600s or 1700s — but the information seems more fanciful than scientific in many cases.

The McClure expedition saw their ship frozen in the ice for 3 years. They ended up abandoning it and finishing the journey on foot and by sledge. Nansen intentionally froze his ship (the Fram) into the ice in hopes of drifting with the ice across the pole.

There are dozens of expeditions to read about and the amount of information varies – some we’ll never know their exact fate (i.e., they never returned).

> some we’ll never know their exact fate (i.e., they never returned)
I’d bet the nuclear navies have pretty good Arctic seabottom maps in their secret files, and the oil companies will to if they don’t already. Likely some historical answers will be there.

But surely the regular recordings of Arctic ice extent would have come from all the sailing there. Sealers, whalers, fishing and trading vessels would have reported regularly to their owners about any observable changes in the accessibility of different areas and particular ports and of sailing and operating conditions being more or less difficult on each voyage.

My favorite media misrepresentation was one by Paul Harvey. He claimed that scientist had bee wrong about the ozone hole because they were now saying “never mind”. The real story was Dow had a breakthough that helped get big industry behind the elimination of HFC pollution putting the hole on a reversal trend.

No surprise at another misleading climate statement in the U.K press, many people in my country (N.Z) are still convinced by David Rose of the Mail stating that temperatures stopped rising 16/17 years ago. What amazes me is the amount of misinformation gets published regarding Climate Change, other science fields/projects (Large Hadron Project etc.), do not suffer from this misinformation so why do they think respectable climate scientists are fair game. It doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.